TED Conversations

Cheyenne Archuleta

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The Existence of God

Is there really a God? Or did everything just poof?

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 14 2013: wow, if memory serves me, all the fallacies you just stated were perpetrated and violently enforced by the Catholic hierarchy. Again, to base the Christian religion off of Catholic dogma is just wrong. And the existence of a global flood has been proven since the 80's, by scientists.
    • thumb
      Jun 14 2013: A global flood is not mainstream science as far as I know.

      A scientist putting forward a dodgy thesis is not proof.

      Any reliable and reputable peer reviewed sources on your claim a global flood is proven? Or some documentary by Christians.
      • thumb
        Jun 14 2013: I will "Google" it. And promise not to give you WIKIPEDIA as a reference. : )
      • thumb
        Jun 14 2013: I tried hard to look for NON Christian based references to the flood. Here are some that i found:
        http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
        and
        http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533&page=2#.UbtPrfm1F8E

        These all talk about a "local" flood, localized to the Mediterranean area.
        here is another, this guy actually wrote a book on it:

        http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/08/14/new-book-explores-noahs-flood-says-bible-and-science-can-get-along/

        Although he states in the interview, of the last reference, “If your world is small enough, all floods are global,” David Montgomery said.

        I also saw a History Channel special on this subject, about a localized ICE DAM breaking and a torrent of water flooding the whole existence of the Mediterranean world.

        Here are two compelling articles FOR my argument:

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

        and

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
        • thumb
          Jun 15 2013: most of these don't support a global flood. In fact one point you make is that a big flood may be interpreted as a global event even if it is not. I have no issues with ordinary floods that are above the average intensity, one in 100 year events etc.

          Answers in genesis is a christian creationist site and not mainstream science. It will help you reinforce your beliefs because it always assumes the bible is correct first.

          Can we agree that the global flood as described in the bible is not the current best scientific explanation accepted by scientists.

          I have no issue with the possibility of a big flood inspiring Babylonian myths that the Hebrews borrowed.
      • thumb
        Jun 15 2013: "You seem to be suggesting those who don't find what you consider evidence sufficient or compelling must be stubbornly committed to a position of not believing."

        Others may choose to believe or not to believe. In that I have no preference. It changes nothing. All things stay the same with or without their believing.

        "Is this how you justify your view in light of all those who don't find it sufficient."

        I have no need to "justify [my] view." And they can find it "sufficient" or insufficient. Their choice.

        "Not one person who thinks you don't have enough evidence who might shift if there were a little more evidence or a more sound argument?"

        Evidence abounds. But it won't be seen as such as long as we choose not to see it as such. There's a gold vein of evidence, a mother lode of evidence, but for some it will still be so much fool's gold. I can't change that.

        "It actually looks like you are acting in a way similar to those you describe as inflexible in the face of evidence."

        That's because you presuppose knowledge of the height, breadth, and depth of my knowing, the foundation of which cannot be undermined by supposed evidence seeking to discredit, but is itself wanting.

        "Disagreement with your position does not automatically mean all those who disagree with you have no sound points or are entrenched in a position."

        That's my point: We all have "sound points," whether we say we're "entrenched" or not. And this may come as a shocker: Those who say that they have "sound points" aren't wrong, they're merely speaking their truth. I have no quarrel with your truth. It's your truth. It's your, I AM THAT. Why would I tell you that you're not THAT.

        "They just are entrenched against believing anything that is not sufficiently demonstrated as per your position, or that Jesus was a god, or we reincarnate or go to Hades etc."

        They can choose to react in the way of their choosing. I spoke my truth. They spoke their truth. This is how life is fashioned.
        • thumb
          Jun 15 2013: Re: All things stay the same with or without their believing.

          I agree.

          It sounds like there is an overwhelming amount of evidence you haven't shared.

          I suggest you spoke what you believe is true. To speak of different conflicting truths is not helpful to work out what most accurately reflects reality. The contradictory beliefs of a muslim, buddhist or shaman can not all be true. The laws of identity and contradiction are a foundation of logic.

          You sound like a spiritual and thoughtful person. Perhaps some of the "evidence' you are alluding to has to do with subjective spiritual experiences and your interpretation of such. Not sure if it was you or someone else where we discussed OOBE.

          Anyway, people of all sorts of world views have similar and profound experiences that they interpret in different ways. I'm an atheist that meditates. Not claiming to be a guru or anything but I do experience other states of mind and feelings of connection or oneness. Physically this is just parts of my brain activating and endorphin etc. Anything more than this is subjective.

          I have heard of even more profound experiences where people have profound dreams or visions and some totem or angel teaches them about the universe or sacred truths. But they don't all necessarily agree, and I'm not sure how you distinguish a mundane dream which is just a product of our amazing minds with an encounter with some amazing entity that exists outside of our mind.

          I hear what you are saying about what people consider a sound argument or not. I guess most Muslims believe their views are sound. Same with Buddhists, Christians and people with more individual interpretations. I do suggest there are reasonable ways to discriminate and test claims. But you might not agree.

          And the personal experience argument may reflect deeply profound experiences. I've "seen"a couple of ghosts, one OOBE etc etc and they at least help you keep an open mind which hopefully balances the critical thinking.

          Thnks
      • thumb
        Jun 15 2013: "It sounds like there is an overwhelming amount of evidence you haven't shared."

        True. I barely get a hearing now. Can you imagine how "certifiable" I would seem if I told you the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God?

        Further, it would be imprudent for me to share more than I've already shared. Caution is always the better part of valor in the world that I inhabit.

        "Physically this is just parts of my brain activating and endorphin etc. Anything more than this is subjective."

        Would your brain have released those "endorphin" without your mind first "experienc[ing] other states of mind and feelings of connection or oneness"?

        The brain is merely a reflector of the mind, although it can be stimulated to imitate what your mind set in motion, but the mind is not limited to the brain and, in the final analysis, is still the initiator, regardless of which seemingly came first, mind or brain.

        My experiences tell me that reality is always subjective and never objective. Nothing happens to you without you at some level giving your consent.

        "But they don't all necessarily agree."

        They shouldn't agree. All information is sifted through our beliefs, and is colored by who we are. There's no such thing as consensus, not in this world or any other. Given the same supposed set of facts, each person will view them differently no matter how objectively you might believe you have presented them, such is our nature.

        "I'm not sure how you distinguish a mundane dream which is just a product of our amazing minds with an encounter with some amazing entity that exists outside of our mind."

        You're supposing that something occurs outside of your mind. There's nothing occurring outside of you, experiences to the contrary.

        "I do suggest there are reasonable ways to discriminate and test claims. But you might not agree."

        Why? To prove them wrong? What would be the point of that? It's always more prudent to expand than to reduce, to grow rather than to stunt.
        • thumb
          Jun 15 2013: I don't blame you.

          Personally I don't find your views any stranger than mainstream religion, just less familiar and popular.

          I'd like to grow by adding reasonably well founded views. Others are perhaps less cautious.

          Other than my interest in having a world view as consistent with reality as practical, I have no issue with beliefs that enrich peoples lives and do no harm.
      • thumb
        Jun 15 2013: "And the personal experience argument may reflect deeply profound experiences. I've "seen"a couple of ghosts, one OOBE etc etc and they at least help you keep an open mind which hopefully balances the critical thinking."

        Keep that "open mind." If you close it, you'll close off more than your mind. In this world and the next, you get what you believe, no more, no less. You experience what you believe, no more, no less.

        Here's to your herenow and your hereafter.

        Thanks for the conversation.
    • Jun 14 2013: Are you talking to me Jonathan? If so, no, I am not talking about any Catholic anything. I am taking about my own reading of the Bible, about actual archeological work around finding manuscripts and such from the mythologies of the peoples who wrote the bible, et cetera.

      Are you seriously saying that local floods are equivalent to global floods? I have no doubt that Noah's story was in part based on some local floods. Local floods are frequent, and for most cultures they must have looked "global" (That's what that author meant by the sentence you quoted: "If your world is small enough, all floods are global.") So what? That does not mean that it was global at all.

      Your answers in genesis sources. I have read those charlatans. The "science" is bogus at best. Sorry, you would have to present actual evidence, not creationist wishful thinking combined with the used-car salesmanship of answers in genesis.
      • thumb
        Jun 14 2013: Hold on Entropy, I would guess that the Catholic comment was to you. The two different ways to reply mess me up sometimes. Sorry for that. In a different comment, I gave different references to the flood theory supported two different ways, both from scientists stating different hypotheses. Of course for and against.
        • Jun 14 2013: There is not a single scientific hypothesis supporting Noah's flood. Not one.

          As per my comment above, I insist too that my reading of the Bible and knowledge about archeological studies does not come from catholics.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.